Insulin response. Go watch a video of an outdoor concert from the 70's No fat people. The explosion of processed flour, and sugars in the diet is killing people. Atkins got it half right. Dukan got the rest.
Here you go bro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukan_Diet What Atkins got wrong was allowing too much fats, once you were ketogenic. Dukan, specifically has you avoid that, so once you are burning fat, it's got to come from YOUR fat, not from your diet.
Insulin Insulin Insulin Bro! What in the living hell are you talking about? I know plenty about insulin response. I'm talking about the difference (or lack there of) between HFCS and sucrose. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064536
LMAO..:rofl2: Posting an article by JS WHITE? the HFCS PIMP? http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/4/1064.full Gee, maybe you could visit the Political threads, and post ProRomney articles by Karl F*ng Rove.... That last quote is why I posted about the rise of the Fast food industry.
That is defacto false.. I routinely run caloric deficits...and have a hard time shedding pounds, unless I follow a specific diet. My intake. 70 calorie yogurt, with some oat bran. Two atkins shakes 3 hours apart, at 140 calories each... either a steak, or some other balanced dinner. I eat up at least 700 calories, 5-6 times a week at the gym. I should probably weigh a buck sixty, instead of 2 bills. You dont know what you are talking about.
Hobbes Thanks for the link I tried to find Dukan's book on amazon and one review caught my attention Have you personally tried this diet? If so, did below thing happened to you as well?
Yes you defy the laws of physics. Can you find me any actual evidence that hfcs is uniquely obesity promoting or you just going to prattle off broscience? And what about insulin response again bro?
Psychologically, you are going to crave anything you deprive yourself of. Simple fact. The question, is figuring out, how to get where you want to go, and once there, figuring out a way to maintain it. Yes, I find it easy to adapt to, and sadly I crave breads, pastas etc.
I did not say HFCS, singularly. I said processed flour and sugars, in concert with the explosion of the fast food industry specifically. (as in the quote above...) (And weight loss is not Physics...stop watching My Cousin Vinny...just sayin...)
I'm sorry, since you seem to (judging from your posts) be the be all know all of the weight loss industry...when can I count on seeing your program advertised on the tube, bro? I mean, if you have the key (or if ANYONE truly does) we have a nation of Obese people that would love to have it. Personally, I think my different strokes for different folks, is far more accurate than More out than Less in...because if that was indeed true, industries would have already collapsed, and we wouldn't be a nation of fat fucks... Maybe you could help clear that up...
Ok i dont think we really disagree. I thought you meant there was something special about the insulin response to hfcs as opposed to sucrose
Now this is an absolutely ridiculous statement. There is no way that you do not lose weight if you are ROUTINELY in a caloric deficit. Yeah its true that technically your weight can go up during a deficit based on glycogen storages and hydration and stuff. But to suggest that you can routinely be in a caloric deficit and not lose weight is absolutely ridiculous. Most likely is your caloric calculations are terrible (ie youre taking in way more than you think and burning way less than you think) Either that or you have some type of major health problem. The human body either is in a deficit, maintenance, or a surplus. Too many calories and the body ends up entering an anabolic state storing extra energy for later (thus making you fat) Maintenance means you're exactly breaking even, expending as much energy as you intake thus staying the same. And a deficit means you do not have sufficient energy intake, therefore your body is forced to break down energy reserves (fat and or muscle) to meet its requirements. (and yes the above is somewhat of a simplification) So if you were actually in a deficit for an extended period of time, the # on the scale would go down. Because that is what a deficit is. To suggest that you can regularly be in a deficit yet not lose weight is simply an absurd notion. Oh and your diet isnt very impressive, jus sayin
The key is quite simple, the execution is quite difficult. Purely pulling #s out of my ass, id say at LEAST 90% of obese people could end up at a reasonable weight (which my definition includes slightly overweight which is OK) by simply eating a balanced reduced calorie diet with exercise several times a week. Its not complicated, theres no magical secret. The problem is these people are addicted to eating shit, and are lazy ass mofos who dont get off their ass. Let me know how many obese people you know who regularly eat 20 + servings of vegetables a week as well as get 3 hours of exercise a week. Its not a secret, its simple ! Just takes effort and discipline.
As I said...if you were as correct, as you think you are...whole industries would have collapsed by now, and the pharmaceutical companies, would have lost billions of dollars...as well as the supplement industry. I eat at least 4 small meals a day. 3 of which, total approx 350 calories over an 8 hour span. Which is less than I burn off at the gym. Now given my muscle mass and size, just to maintain weight, according to your expertise, I'd need to have north of 2000 calories at dinner, and then some...(which would be like 3 Whoppers, I cant eat more than one Whopper Jr....) Yet.... So, Dr.Expert, when does your book come out?
Whole industries would of collapsed ? Pharmaceutical companies, and supplemental companies would of lost billions ? Please explain how For starters the majority of supplements sold for weight loss, simply dont work, period (or arent effective enough). Or else there wouldnt be many fat people. So these industries make their billions selling useless shit, to morons. And for the products that do work, or kind of work it still goes back to exactly what i said. Calories in, calories out. You eat 3000 calories a day. Your basic metabolic rate is say 1500, plus you burn off 1500 calories from all the walking/exercise etc in a day. Thats maintenance, your weight stays the same. So the idea behind a supplement (or drug) would be to do one of 2 things. Increase your calories burned, or decrease your intake. So these companies could make a drug that curbs your appetite (or fills your stomach ie like a fiber) thus reducing calories in. Or they could make a drug that increases calories out (ie thermogenics). Which work by increasing the body temperature and metabolic rate, thus having you burn more calories. Which all comes back to.... Calories in vs Calories out. Complicated stuff right ? Calories in < Calories out = Less fat Dont worry youll eventually get it.
